tl;dr: How come Alex Murdaugh's lead counsel fucked up the 2023 case so badly?
I'm not a lawyer and, as a German passport holder, would only describe myself as a "law enthusiast," if that makes sense, mostly within the US legal system. I do have knowledge of German and Thai law, but, compared to the US, very little.
In 2023, I avidly followed the trial of The State v. Richard Alexander Murdaugh. As a non-lawyer, I learned as much as I could by reading and watching everything in the public domain.
Now, my question is subjective. Very early on, it was reported that Murdaugh would be defended by lead counsel Dick Harpootlian as well as Jim Griffin, so I expected to see Harpootlian – from what I know, an extremely experienced criminal attorney making it up to Solicitor for the Fifth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina before going into private practice – for the lack of a better word, a "fight."
People describe him as being "aggressive" in his capacity as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney. He is a well-known, highly successful attorney in South Carolina, whose own website describes him as having "delivered the opening remarks in what would become the longest and one of the most highly publicized criminal trials in South Carolina history."
Jim Griffin, Murdaugh's second lead counsel, was also a well-established attorney in South Carolina and, according to his website, "was honored by the South Carolina Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates as the 'Trial Lawyer of the Year.'"
Now, the question that I can't seem to understand: Why did they fuck up so badly in the Murdaugh case? Let's set aside his and Harpootlian's victory in overturning and successfully arguing for a retrial; I'm only interested in understanding his defense strategy (or lack thereof) in the Murdaugh trial.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I might have judged him wrongly. But he did misstep at least once by opening the door to the financial side, which the impressive prosecutor, Creighton Waters, took full advantage of, establishing a clear motive for the double murder of his wife and son, including outright fraud.
Putting Murdaugh on the stand deserves its own chapter. Obviously, I can't say whose decision it was that brought Murdaugh to the stand, which everyone knows backfired spectacularly, especially with a bulldog of a prosecutor like Waters.
So, I'd like to know some rationale behind these decisions from real lawyers or people much more informed than I.
Thank you, and my apologies for the long text. And sorry if I've used any terminology incorrectly.